Hi Pedro That's one idea isn't it. And I suppose you could write a macro for a 'metarecord' to generate both Foo and FooDefinition from a single concise and convenient definition?
At the other end of the scale there is always the option of a naming convention - ducks-Set-Of-Birds etc!! Charles. On Jul 11, 5:15 pm, Pedro Henriques dos Santos Teixeira <pedr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Quzanti <quza...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Michał > > > You did understand my intention, and it was the former non-existent > > case I was referring to. > > > I wanted to attach metadata about type, field arity etc in the > > definition of the record type so that I could write some tools to do > > intelligent conversion between record structures. > > I have a similar need, and decided to model a FooDefinition record as > part of my domain. > > (regards), > Pedro -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
